A Brief Analysis of George Whitefield's Reply to John Wesley on God's Mercy and Love

George Whitefield, in his dispute with Wesley over the subject of Calvinism, wrote:

Farther, you say, page 18th, paragraph 19th—-"This doctrine makes revelation contradict itself." For instance, say you, "The asserters of this doctrine interpret the text of the scriptures, Jacob have I loved, but Esau have I hated, as implying that God, in a literal sense, hated Esau and all the reprobates from eternity!" And when considered as fallen in Adam, were they not objects of his hatred? And might not God, of his own good pleasure, love or show mercy to Jacob and the elect, and yet at the same time do the reprobate no wrong? But you say, "God is love." And cannot God be love, unless he shows the same mercy to all?

Again, says dear Mr. Wesley, "They infer from that text, I will have mercy on whom I will have mercy, that God is love only to some men, viz. the elect, and that he has mercy for those only; flatly contrary to which is the whole tenor of the scripture, as is that express declaration in particular, The Lord is loving to every man, and his mercy is over all his works." And so it is, but not his saving mercy. God is loving to every man, he sends his rain upon the evil and upon the good. But you say, God is no respecter of persons. No! for every one, whether Jew or gentile, that believeth on Jesus, and worketh righteousness, is accepted of him. But he that believeth not shall be damned. For God is no respecter of persons, i. e. upon the account of any outward condition or circumstance in life whatever. Nor does the doctrine of election in the least suppose him to be so; but as the sovereign Lord of all, who is debtor to none, he has a right to do what he will with his own, and dispense his favors to what object he sees fit, merely at his pleasure. And his supreme right herein is clearly and strongly asserted in those passages of scripture, where he says, I will have mercy, on whom I will have mercy, and have compassion on whom I will have compassion, Rom. ix. 15. Exodus, xxxiii. 19.

Taken from "Whitefield's Letter to Wesley," in Memoirs of Rev. George Whitefield, ed. John Gilles (New Haven: Whitmore & Buckingham, 1834), 639.

Observe the flow of the argument. Whitefield cites Wesley's argument as follows:

Farther, you say, page 18th, paragraph 19th—-"This doctrine makes revelation contradict itself." For instance, say you, "The asserters of this doctrine interpret the text of the scriptures, Jacob have I loved, but Esau have I hated, as implying that God, in a literal sense, hated Esau and all the reprobates from eternity!

Wesley is saying that Whitefield's position on sovereign election makes revelation contradict itself. He then cites his problems with how some interpret Romans 9:13.

NKJ Romans 9:13 As it is written, "Jacob I have loved, but Esau I have hated."

Whitefield replies:

And when considered as fallen in Adam, were they not objects of his hatred?

Whitefield grants that there is a sense in which God hated Esau, when "considered as fallen in Adam." So his reply is basically, "in one sense, yes." He also argues that Wesley himself would have to grant that as well, when considering men as fallen in Adam, i.e., as contemplating them as sinners, and not without a cause.

Whitefield continues:

And might not God, of his own good pleasure, love or show mercy to Jacob and the elect, and yet at the same time do the reprobate no wrong?

In other words, he's arguing that God's love and mercy shown to Jacob and the rest of the elect does not imply that injustice or wrong is done unto the reprobate.

Wesley's problem and Whitefield's position become more clear in what is said next:

But you say, "God is love." And cannot God be love, unless he shows the same mercy to all?

Wesley's problem, according to Whitefield, is not that Wesley thinks that God is merciful to all. Rather, it's just that Wesley thinks that Whitefield's theology would entail that God is somehow unjust unless he EQUALLY shows mercy to all, i.e., "the same mercy." Instead of telling Wesley that God only loves or is merciful towards the elect, he is actually arguing that God is ESPECIALLY merciful or loving toward the elect.

Here are three options:

A) God wills to equally show mercy, love or grace to all.

B) God is merciful or loving to all, but God wills to especially show mercy, love or grace to the elect.

C) God is only merciful, loving or gracious to the elect.

Rather than taking position (C) in response to Wesley's position (A), Whitefield takes position (B). This will become more clear as the argument continues to unfold. Position (C) is actually quite like position (A) in terms of the thinking processes behind it. Wesley cannot grasp how God can love and hate the same human object at the same time but in different senses. He therefore concludes that God must love all equally. Those in position (C) have the same reasoning problem, but they arrive at a different conclusion. Since they cannot perceive how God can love and hate the same human object at the same time but in different senses, they conclude that God only loves the elect. Rather than discern the biblical balance in position (B), they both split the biblical data into half-truths, according to their focus or theological preferences, and either arrive at position (A) or (C) accordingly. They erroneously think the law of non-contradiction states that "A cannot be non-A at the same time," rather than it being "A cannot be non-A at the same time and in the same sense." Tri-theists and Unitarians suffer from the same rationalistic disorder, as all error ultimately does. This is why people tend to think in terms of false either/or dilemmas, such as either position (A) or position (C). Position (B) is just a "contradiction" to them, so it is quickly and scornfully dismissed. Wesley is actually arguing against position (C) because he is thinking in terms of false either/or dilemmas. Whitefield tries to correct the error by making careful distinctions that Wesley is continually missing.

Whitefield cites Wesley again and continues the argument:

Again, says dear Mr. Wesley, "They infer from that text, I will have mercy on whom I will have mercy, that God is love only to some men, viz. the elect, and that he has mercy for those only; flatly contrary to which is the whole tenor of the scripture, as is that express declaration in particular, The Lord is loving to every man, and his mercy is over all his works.

Notice that Wesley is actually arguing against the position that God only loves the elect. He cannot distinguish between senses of God's love, so he's hammering away against position (C). One can tell that he is quite emotional in his argumentation. If position (C) were actually the position of Whitefield or of Calvinism in general, then that is quite understandable. However, Whitefield puts forth position (B) again. He says:

And so it is, but not his saving mercy. God is loving to every man, he sends his rain upon the evil and upon the good.

He grants that Wesley's citation of Psalm 145:9 (NKJ Psalm 145:9 The LORD is good to all, And His tender mercies are over all His works.) teaches that there is a sense in which God is merciful and loving to every man, but not in terms of his willingness to grant "saving mercy." The latter is reserved for the elect alone, according to Whitefield. Notice also Whitefield's citation of Matthew 5:45 and his interpretation of it. He infers from it that "God is loving to every man" in that "he sends his rain upon the evil and upon the good." He does not overreact to Wesley and emotionally swing over to position (C). Rather, he calmly argues for the rational and biblical position (B) in his response.

Wesley then brings up the "God is not a respecter of persons" argument, as if Whitefield's election position entails such a thing:

But you say, God is no respecter of persons.

Whitefield replies:

No! for every one, whether Jew or gentile, that believeth on Jesus, and worketh righteousness, is accepted of him. But he that believeth not shall be damned. For God is no respecter of persons, i. e. upon the account of any outward condition or circumstance in life whatever. Nor does the doctrine of election in the least suppose him to be so; but as the sovereign Lord of all, who is debtor to none, he has a right to do what he will with his own, and dispense his favors to what object he sees fit, merely at his pleasure. And his supreme right herein is clearly and strongly asserted in those passages of scripture, where he says, I will have mercy, on whom I will have mercy, and have compassion on whom I will have compassion, Rom. ix. 15. Exodus, xxxiii. 19.

In other words, Whitefield is saying that his view of election is not based in any "outward condition or circumstance in life." God's choice of some is not at all based in any virtue or quality found in those chosen. Election is not a reward due to the chosen, but a sovereign prerogative of God whereby he is determined to have mercy upon some and not others. Some receive mercy and others receive justice. No one receives injustice.

In fact, one could further argue that the justice of God's wrath is underlined because of the wickedness of the response to his grace and favor shown to the reprobate. The extent of their damnation proves how good God was to them (the magnanimity of his grace), the power of His patience and the justice of his wrath. Heightened judgment presupposes that some sincere good was done unto them, which could not be the case if God only loved the elect, i.e., position (C).